belhumph's review against another edition
1.0
Incomprehensible, some people shouldn't speak. How can I unpublish this work?
selaadin's review against another edition
4.0
I don't agree with many of Hobbes' views or proposals when it comes to what a civilisation should be like, but I do firmly believe that this is a great philosophical text to read to expand one's horizons in the area. I don't believe the language is too hard, and after you get through the first chapters where he just lists lots of terms and defines them convolutedly, it gets very interesting. The interwoven Christian ideology is absolutely fascinating for anyone who doesn't know it too well, which I didn't too much, though I wouldn't use this as a primary source to explain it; it's more of an interesting interpretation of it. But yes, definitely a very good read: long, but satisfying and interesting throughout!
caris96's review against another edition
1.0
I didn’t consider this rating lightly; this is the worst review I’ve given to a classic philosophical work. There are a number of reasons for this: two stars would be a book I largely disagreed with or found dull, but can still appreciate its influence. This book didn’t even deliver that. It’s riddled with contentious and blatantly wrong assertions, with either little or flawed argumentation.
Despite its reputation and influence, there was nothing radical about Christian theocracy in the 1600’s. Where Hobbes is correct, he is just parroting Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas. Where he is wrong, he isn’t proposing anything new. A view that I disagreed with, but could entertain, would be Hobbes’ appeals to Human Nature, which were shared with other philosophers of his time who I favour more, but like most classic bourgeois philosophers, Hobbes mistakes ‘human nature’ for struggles borne of contemporary material conditions.
On the other hand, there are arguments that border on disingenuous. For example, a “prime mover”, taken for granted straight from centuries of Christian tradition. Hobbes’ discomfort with an infinite regress of causes leads him not only to conclude that there must be a first cause, but that such a cause must be ‘god’ and contain, conveniently, all the qualities of the Christian god. He provides no argument and no demonstration of necessity for this. His political ideas derive from vapid and outdated assumptions. But it is also unsurprising that his theological views would inform his political views; at the end of the day, this reasoning has led the majority of the Western canon to accept theories of authority, wealth inequality, and carcerality that have only ever proven disastrous for society.
There may be certain details in this work that were ‘new’ for its time, but ultimately, I’m more interested in whether arguments are made well than whether they were impressive to people at the time, or Western liberals today – neither of which are high standards for radical political thought.
Despite its reputation and influence, there was nothing radical about Christian theocracy in the 1600’s. Where Hobbes is correct, he is just parroting Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas. Where he is wrong, he isn’t proposing anything new. A view that I disagreed with, but could entertain, would be Hobbes’ appeals to Human Nature, which were shared with other philosophers of his time who I favour more, but like most classic bourgeois philosophers, Hobbes mistakes ‘human nature’ for struggles borne of contemporary material conditions.
On the other hand, there are arguments that border on disingenuous. For example, a “prime mover”, taken for granted straight from centuries of Christian tradition. Hobbes’ discomfort with an infinite regress of causes leads him not only to conclude that there must be a first cause, but that such a cause must be ‘god’ and contain, conveniently, all the qualities of the Christian god. He provides no argument and no demonstration of necessity for this. His political ideas derive from vapid and outdated assumptions. But it is also unsurprising that his theological views would inform his political views; at the end of the day, this reasoning has led the majority of the Western canon to accept theories of authority, wealth inequality, and carcerality that have only ever proven disastrous for society.
There may be certain details in this work that were ‘new’ for its time, but ultimately, I’m more interested in whether arguments are made well than whether they were impressive to people at the time, or Western liberals today – neither of which are high standards for radical political thought.
eb00kie's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
For volunteering to read the free Librivox edition, warm thanks to Carl Manchester, hugh mac, Anna Simon, Sibella Denton, Gesine, Darren L. Slider, hefyd, Leon Mire, D.E. Wittkower, Nikki Sullivan, Kirsten Ferreri, Arouet, Smokey B., Ransom, Cicorée, Nicholas James Bridgewater, David Higham, Ashwin Jain, David Higham, Nacelle Droll, Ashwin Jain, Geoffrey Edwards, Jessica Louise and Jamie Ash Young.
Extensive and well-argumented, with an emphasis on religion and religion being the natural law - also fairly vague at times, more theory than practice. Fairly hard to digest, currently going over the SparkNotes.
Extensive and well-argumented, with an emphasis on religion and religion being the natural law - also fairly vague at times, more theory than practice. Fairly hard to digest, currently going over the SparkNotes.
el_le94's review against another edition
3.0
Hobbes inizia la sua riflessione da un’ipotesi estrema: in natura c’è una moltitudine di individui, privi di qualunque legame tra di loro. Il conflitto nasce in virtù del fatto che quando un individuo sfrutta una possibilità, ne priva qualcun altro: il cosmo, infatti, non è in grado di soddisfare il desiderio di tutti perché le risorse non sono illimitate. È da qui che nasce il conflitto. In altre parole, egli parte dall’idea che in natura c’è una moltitudine di individui uguali, con le stesse capacità. Ed è proprio in virtù di questa uguaglianza, da questo jus naturale – diritto di natura, ossia “la libertà che ciascuno possiede di usare il proprio potere nel senso che vuole, allo scopo di preservare la propria natura, cioè la sua vita, e conseguentemente di fare qualunque cosa che, secondo il giudizio e la ragione, gli sembra essere il mezzo più adatto a realizzare quel fine”, il diritto di tutti a tutto – che si origina il conflitto endemico, la guerra di tutti contro tutti, poiché ognuno ha, per natura, diritto ad ogni cosa.